THE CROSSLEYS--MASTERS AND MEN (CONTINUED).
"The sense to enjoy riches, with the art
T' enjoy them, and the virtue to impart."--_Pope_.
"My ventures are not in one bottom trusted,
Nor to one place; nor is my whole estate
Upon the fortune o' this present year."--_Shakespeare_.
"The roughest road often leads to the smoothest fortune."--_Franklin_.
"Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The
heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no
need of spoil.... She seeketh wool and flax, and worketh willingly with
her hands.... She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold
the distaff. She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth
forth her hands to the needy.... Strength and honour are her clothing;
and she shall rejoice in time to come.... Her children arise up, and
call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her."--_Proverbs of
Solomon_.
There are several large employers who have endeavoured to combine the
principle of co-operation with the business of manufacturing; and to
furnish to the men who have contributed to their past prosperity the
opportunity of sharing in their future profits. The object of these
masters has been to obviate the antagonism between capital and labour,
and to spread the spirit of contentment among the operatives. Workmen
who have saved their earnings, and stored them in savings banks, are in
this manner enabled to become partners in the concerns in which they
have formerly employed their labour.
The two principal manufacturing concerns of Halifax, those of James
Akroyd and Son, and John Crossley and Sons, have thus become converted
into joint stock companies. They have been so converted with the primary
design of receiving the co-operation of the managers, workmen, and
others associated with them; and with that view the directors have in
all cases given them the priority in the allotment of the shares.
We have already referred to the philanthropic work accomplished by
Edward Akroyd in the county of York. We have now to refer to the
Crossley firm, whose carpets are known throughout the world. We refer to
them with the greater pleasure, as their history contains a story which
may possibly add to the interest of this book,--which, however useful,
some readers may consider to be rather dull to read.
The founder of this firm was John Crossley. He belonged to an old
Yorkshire family. His grandfather, who lived at King's Cross, near
Halifax, was born of respectable parents, and had a good education, yet
he was by no means fond of business. In fact, he spent the greater part
of his time in hunting and shooting. His wife was, however, of a very
different character. She was industrious, energetic, and an excellent
household manager. She not only maintained herself, but her husband and
her family. She did this by means of a boarding school which she
kept,--one of the best in the neighbourhood of Halifax.
One of her sons, the father of John Crossley, was brought up to
carpet-weaving. He learnt his business with Mr. Webster, of Clay-pits,
one of whose daughters he afterwards married. John Crossley himself also
became a carpet-weaver with his uncle; and when his apprenticeship was
finished, he went to weave for Mr. Currer, a large carpet manufacturer
at Luddenden Foot. While working at this factory, his master built a
large fine house to live in. He thought he had money enough saved for
the purpose, but circumstances proved that he had not. Mr. Currer told
his foreman that he had kept an account of its cost until he had spent
£4,000, and then he became so disgusted that he burnt the memorandum
book, although the house was not nearly finished. He said "he had done
all that to please a woman,"--meaning his wife. Although Mr. Currer was
an excellent man of business, his wife was too fond of show, and the
large fine house in which she was to live proved her husband's ruin. He
died shortly after it was finished, and then the whole of his
establishment was broken up.
After leaving Mr. Currer, John Crossley removed to Halifax to take the
management of Mr. Job Lees' carpet manufactory in Lower George Yard,
Halifax. He began to look out for a wife, and the history of his
courtship is curious as well as interesting. The Crossleys seem to have
had the good fortune to fall in with excellent wives; and the prosperity
of the family is quite as much due to the Crossley women as to the
Crossley men.
Martha Crossley, the future wife of John Crossley, was born at Folly
Hall, near the Ambler Thorn Bar. Her great-grandfather, Thomas Turner,
was a farmer. He lived at the Upper Scout Hall, Shibden, and the
farm-house which he occupied, at the head of the Shibden Valley, is
still in existence. The eldest son was brought up to his father's
business. The youngest son, Abraham, was brought up to farming, weaving,
and combing. He married, and had three children--Abraham, Thomas, and
Martha. Abraham, the eldest, was father of Mrs. John Crossley, _née_
Turner.
Abraham was also brought up to farming and manufacturing; but it must be
remembered that manufacturing was in those days conducted on a very much
smaller scale than it is now. He afterwards went into partnership with
his brother Thomas, to make worsted goods, but after his marriage the
partnership was dissolved. He then became the proprietor of the Scout
Farm, and there brought up his family.
Although Abraham Turner was a landed proprietor, he did not think it
beneath him to allow his daughter Martha to go out to service. When
about fifteen years old she went as a servant to Miss Oldfield at
Warley. In that service, in her own person, she did the work of
kitchenmaid, housemaid, and cook, and in addition to that, she milked
four or five cows night and morning. She remained about ten years with
Miss Oldfield. Her wages were at first fifteen-pence a week; after two
years, they were increased to eighteen-pence; and after nine years'
service, they were increased to six guineas a year. Yet during that time
Martha Turner saved thirty pounds by sheer thrift.
John Crossley, the founder of the Crossley firm, and the husband of
Martha Turner, was originally a carpet-weaver. One night, when working
at the loom, he was taking his "drinking," and on laying down his black
bottle it fell and broke. In trying to catch the bottle, he cut his arm
so severely that it was thought he would have bled to death. He could
not work at the loom any longer, and he was going about with his arm in
a sling, when his employer, Mr. Currer, said to him, "John, do you think
you could tie up a loom, as you cannot now weave?" John replied that he
thought he could. He tried, and proved so expert that his master would
not allow him to go back to the loom. John Crossley used to regard the
accident to his arm as the turning-point in his life.
In the meantime he was going on with the business of courtship, though
it was very much against the wish of the proud farmer--the father of
Martha Turner. He declared that he would never allow his daughter to
marry a weaver, or even a foreman of weavers. Perhaps the story of their
courtship is best told in Martha's own words.
"When I went to the gate one evening, there was a young man standing
there, who asked me if I wanted a sweetheart. I answered, 'Not I, marry!
I want no sweethearts.' I then went into the house, and left him. I saw
the same young man frequently about, but did not speak to him for years
after. His name was John Crossley. When my mistress ascertained his
object, she did all she could to set me against him. She told me that
when she was a girl, she had gone to a boarding-school kept by a Mrs.
Crossley,--that her husband's name was Tom Crossley, the grandfather of
this very man that was courting me,--and that a wilder, idler scapegrace
she never knew. She always said, when she saw him coming, 'There's young
Crossley come again.'
"One day I received a love-letter from him, which I could now repeat
word for word. I had several other suitors, but none were so persevering
as John Crossley. He pressed me very much to have him. At last he sent
me a letter to say that a house was vacant in Lower George Yard, close
to the works he was managing, and that it was a great chance to meet
with one so convenient. I told him that I was going home to spend the
5th of November, and would pass that way and look at the house, which I
did. When I got home I asked my parents for their consent. They did not
object much to it at the time; but I had not been at Miss Oldfield's
more than a day or two, before they sent over my sister Grace to say
that they would not give their consent to the match, and that if I
insisted on being married to John Crossley, they would never look me in
the face again.
"So soon as my sister was gone, I retired in a most distressed state of
feeling to my bedroom, and opened my book that was the preparation for
the sacrament, and the first place at which I opened I read these words:
'When thy father and thy mother forsake thee, then the Lord will take
thee up.' This comforted me very much. I felt that the Lord was with me
in this matter, and I could no longer doubt which was the path of
duty.... I decided to accept John Crossley's offer, and we were married
on the 28th day of January, 1800."
Mr. Crossley never did a better day's work than in marrying his
excellent and noble wife. From that day forward she was his helper, his
co-worker, his consoler. She assisted her husband in all his struggles,
and in a certain sense she was the backbone of the Crossley family.
After the death of Mr. Job Lees, whose carpet manufactory he had
managed, Mr. Crossley entered into partnership with two other persons,
to take the plant and carry on the business. Some difference having
occurred with the partners, he left the firm, and took a lease of Dean
Clough Mill, where he entered into another partnership with his brother
Thomas, and James Travers. There they carried on the business of worsted
spinning. At the same time, John Crossley continued to spin and dye the
yarns and to manage the looms of the firm which he had left. In fact,
the dyeing and spinning for the old firm formed a considerable part of
the business of the new one. Then came a crisis. The old firm took away
their work: they sent the wool to be spun and the yarn to be dyed
elsewhere. This was a great blow; but eventually it was got over by
extra diligence, energy, and thrift,--Mrs. Crossley herself taking a
full share in the labours and responsibility of her husband.
"In addition to the carpet making," she says in the Manuscript Memoir of
her life, "we carried on the manufacture of shalloons and plainbacks,
the whole of which I managed myself, so far as putting out the warps and
weft, and taking in from the weavers. We had at one time as many as a
hundred and sixty hand weavers on these goods. We sold the principal
part of them in London. We had also about four looms making brace webs
and body belts. The produce of these looms I sold principally to the
Irish, who made them up into braces and hawked them about the country. I
also made and stitched, with assistance, all the carpets that we sold
retail. I used to get up to work by four o'clock in the morning, and
being very diligent, I have usually earned two shillings before
breakfast, by the time that my neighbours were coming downstairs."
The partnership of Crossley, Travers, and Crossley, lasted for twenty
years. When the term had expired, the partners shared their savings;
they amounted to £4,200, or fourteen hundred pounds to each. This was
not a very large sum to make during twenty years' hard work; but Dean
Clough Mill was then but a small concern, and each partner did his own
share of handiwork in spinning, dyeing, and weaving. Mrs. Crossley says
that "the fourteen hundred pounds came in very useful." In fact, it was
only a beginning. John Crossley eventually bought the Dean Clough Mills
out and out. He had a family of eight children to provide for; and he
put his sons for the most part into his business. They followed the
example of their parents, and became thrifty, useful, and honourable
men.
John Crossley, the founder of the firm, has observed, that in the course
of his life he was a keen observer of men and things. He says he noticed
many of the failures of his neighbours in bringing up their children.
Some fathers were so strict with their children, keeping them so
constantly at home, and letting them see so little of the world in which
they lived, that when the fathers died and the children were removed
from all restraint, they came forth into the world like calves, and
found everything entirely different from what they expected. Such
unguided young persons, Mr. Crossley found, soon became wild, lost, and
ruined. Then he observed the opposite extreme,--where the fathers
indulged their children so much, that they became quite unfitted to
endure the hardships of the world,--and, like a vessel that is sent to
sea without a helm, they soon became stranded on the shores of life.
Hence Mr. Crossley endeavoured to steer clear of both extremes, and to
give to his sons as much knowledge and experience of life as possible.
When at home, he always had one of his sons near him; or when he went
from home, he always took one of them with him. Thus they gained a great
deal of practical knowledge of life, and knew something of the good and
evil in the world; and as they grew older, they were all the better able
to turn their own lives to the best account.
It is not necessary to follow the history of the Crossley family
further. John Crossley died in 1837, after which the firm was conducted
by John, Joseph, and Sir Francis Crossley, Bart. The latter represented
the West Riding of the county of York at the time of his death, a few
years ago. In 1857 he purchased a splendid piece of ground, which he
presented to the Corporation of Halifax, to be used as a People's Park
for ever. In the speech which he made on the occasion of presenting it,
he said, amongst other things, that he had often discussed with his
friend the Mayor the philosophy of money. "I recollect very well," he
said, "once entering into the question with him, when I was twenty years
younger than I am now, and saying that I saw a great deal of emptiness
about this money-getting; that many were striving for that which they
thought would make them happy, but that it was like a bubble upon the
water--no sooner caught than burst.... Had I," he afterwards said, "been
of noble birth, or traced my origin (like some in this room) to those
who came in with William the Conqueror, however true it might be, it
would not have been good, it would even be boastful to have done so.[1]
But since I am of humble birth, perhaps it will be allowed me to say a
little of those who ought to share the honour which is heaped upon me.
My mother was the daughter of a farmer who lived upon his own estate,
and although it was not large, it had been in the family for many
generations. Her father made the same mistake that Jacob made,--Jacob
made too much of Joseph, and her father made too much of Mary. My mother
was seventeen, and quick in disposition. She said that right was not
done to her at home, and she was determined to make her own way in the
world, whatever the consequences might be. She went out to service,
contrary to the wish of her father. I am honoured to-day with the
presence of one who has descended from the family who engaged her as
servant: I mean Mr. Oldfield, of Stock Lane, vice-chairman of the
Halifax Board of Guardians. In that service, in her own person, she did
the work of kitchenmaid, of housemaid, and of cook; and in addition to
that she regularly milked six cows every night and morning. Besides
which, she kept the house, which was as clean as a little palace. But
this was not enough to employ her willing hands. Her mistress took in
wool or tops to spin, and she could do what scarcely any in Warley could
have done,--she spun that wool to thirty-six hanks in the pound, and
thus earned many a guinea for her mistress, besides doing all her other
work."[2]
[Footnote 1: Those who "came in with William the Conqueror" are not the
oldest but the youngest of British families. They are the most recent
occupiers of British soil. The Angles and Saxons, whose lands the
Normans divided amongst themselves, occupied Britain many hundred years
before the arrival of the Conqueror. In the remote dales of Yorkshire
and Lancashire, the ancient race still exists. And thus the Crossley
family may have a much longer pedigree, could they but trace it, than
any of those who "came in with William the Conqueror." The latter are
able to trace their origin because their numbers are so small, their
possessions so large, and their introduction as English proprietors
comparatively so recent.]
[Footnote 2: In these snobbish days, when rich people are so often
ashamed of their fathers and grandfathers, and vainly endeavour to make
out their ancient 'nobility,' it was honest and manly on the part of Sir
Francis Crossley thus publicly to relate these facts; and to share with
his mother the honour of conferring his splendid present of the People's
Park on the townsmen of Halifax.]
Sir Francis went on to relate the history of his father (as given above
from his own manuscript), until the time when he took the Dean Clough
Mill. "My mother," he says, "went thither with her usual energy. As she
was going down the yard at four o'clock in the morning, she made this
vow: 'If the Lord does bless us at this place, the poor shall taste of
it.' It is to this vow, given with so much faithfulness, and kept with
so much fidelity, that I attribute the great success which my father had
in business. My mother was always looking how she could best keep this
vow. In the days that are gone by, when it was a dreary thing to give
employment to a large number of people, the advice that she gave to her
sons was, 'Do not sell your goods for less than they cost, for it would
ruin you without permanently benefiting any one; but if you can go on
giving employment during the winter, do so, for it is a bad thing for a
working man to go home and hear his children cry for bread, when he has
none to give them.'"
And now with respect to the manner in which Sir Francis Crossley
fulfilled the vow of his mother. "On the 10th of September, 1855," he
said, "I left Quebec early in the morning, for the White Mountains in
the United States. I remember passing through some of the most glorious
scenery I had ever seen. On reaching the hotel at the White Mountains, I
went out alone for an evening walk. It was a beautiful spot. The sun was
just declining behind Mount Washington, amidst all the glorious drapery
of an American sunset. I felt as if I was walking with God. 'What,' said
I, 'shall I render for all His benefits to me? Lord, what wilt Thou have
me to do?' The answer came immediately. It was this: 'It is true thou
canst not bring the many thousands thou has left behind thee in thy
native country, to see this beautiful scenery, but thou canst take such
scenery to them. It is possible so to arrange art and nature that they
shall be within the reach of every working man in Halifax; that he shall
go and take his evening walk there, after his day's toil has been done.'
Well, that seemed to me a glorious thought! I walked home, and my prayer
that night was, that in the morning I might feel that my thought was
justified, and that I might be spared to put it in execution. I slept
soundly that night, and when I awoke my impression was confirmed. On the
10th of September, when I left Quebec for the White Mountains, I had no
more idea of making a park than any one here has of building a city. On
the day I reached home, I felt as convinced that I should carry out my
thought, as I was of my own existence. And from that day to this I have
never flinched from the undertaking, whatever difficulties might arise.
It is a happy day for me that I have been permitted to see the result,
in the People's Park that has been opened to-day."
The Park was opened in August, 1857.[1] Three years later, a fine statue
of Sir Francis Crossley (by Mr. Joseph Durham) was placed in the Park,
so that all comers, while beholding the princely gift, might also see
the form and features of the giver. The cost of the statue was defrayed
by public subscription, in which persons of all political parties
joined. The preparation of the statue was delayed by the revolution in
Italy, which placed Victor Emanuel on the Italian throne. While the
quarrymen at Carrara were digging out the block of marble of which the
figure was to be sculptured, they were roused by shouts of "Liberty,"
coupled with the name of Garibaldi, and they left their work to join the
banner of that victorious leader. In front of the statue is the
following inscription: "This statue of Frank Crossley, Esq., M.P. for
the West Riding of the county of York, donor of the People's Park, was
erected August 14, 1860, by the inhabitants of Halifax, his native town,
as a tribute of gratitude and respect to one whose public benefactions
and private virtues deserve to be remembered."
[Footnote 1: The Park is situated in the centre of the borough of
Halifax, and covers twelve acres and a half of ground. It cost Sir
Francis Crossley £35,000, who also gave to the Corporation £6,300 to be
invested for its maintenance.]
But the vow of Martha Crossley was not yet entirely fulfilled: "If the
Lord does bless us at this place, the poor shall taste of it." That was
what she promised on her husband's entering into possession of Dean
Clough Mills; and her sons have nobly fulfilled her promise. In 1864,
the extensive business of John Crossley and Sons, with all its mills,
machinery, plant, warehouses and stock-in-trade--at Halifax,
Kidderminster, Manchester, and London,--was converted into a joint-stock
company. The company was formed with the primary design of receiving the
co-operation of all parties associated with the business, and with the
object of securing a spirit of harmony and the material well-being and
profit of the workpeople, clerks, managers, and others interested in the
concern. In order to enable the workpeople to join in the business, a
large sum of money was lent to them for the purpose of taking up
returned shares in the company; and the workpeople took them up to a
large extent. A preference was always given to the managers and
operatives; and the amount of shares applied for by them was invariably
allotted in full.
The results of this system have proved entirely satisfactory; the
directors reporting that "the active energies of all parties necessary
to ensure success have been fully enlisted. They claim originality, in
their method of securing the direct interest of the _employés_, and they
rejoice in being able to report that the system has more than realized
their highest expectations."[1] At the present time, the _employés_ hold
shares in the company, of the value of about thirty thousand pounds; and
the deposit bank, founded for the use of the workpeople exclusively,
contains money-savings amounting to more than sixteen thousand pounds!
And thus the vow of Martha Crossley, that the poor should taste of the
prosperity of John Crossley and Sons, has been amply and nobly
fulfilled!
[Footnote 1: Reports of the Paris Universal Exhibition, 1867, vol. vi.,
pp. 119--141.]
One of the most promising of co-operative undertakings established by
employers for the benefit of their workpeople, was that of the Messrs.
Briggs and Son, of Whitwood collieries, near Wakefield. The collieries
were converted into a limited company in 1865. The working colliers were
made partners in the prosperity of the concern to this extent,--that
whenever the divisible profits accruing from the business in any year,
after making allowance for depreciation, exceeded ten per cent, on the
capital embarked, all those employed by the company were to receive
one-half of such excess profit as a bonus, to be distributed amongst
them in proportion to their respective earnings during the year. The
object of the owners was to put an end to strikes, which had sometimes
placed them in peril of their lives, and also to enable them to live on
better terms with their workpeople. The colliers were invited to become
shareholders, and thus to take a personal interest in the prosperity of
the concern.
The project was received with great favour by the friends of
co-operation. Mr. John Stuart Mill, in his Principles of Political
Economy, announced that "the Messrs. Briggs had taken the _first step_;
and that it was highly honourable on the part of those employers of
labour to have initiated a system so full of benefit both to the
operatives employed and to the general interests of social improvement."
Mr. Hughes, M.P., after visiting the collieries, expressed his surprise
at the great success achieved in the first year of working the
collieries as a partnership of industry. "I believe," he said to the
owners, "that in taking this step you have done a great work for
England, and one which will be gratefully recognized before long by the
country." The promoters also claimed a reward from the Paris Universal
Exhibition, for having been "the first large employers in England who
have allowed all their workpeople, whether co-shareholders with them or
not, to participate in all divisible profits beyond a fixed percentage
on the paid-up capital of the company."
Only a few years have passed, and already this promising partnership of
industry has come to an end. It has not been brought to an end by the
masters, but by the men. The masters were satisfied with the profits
made during the recent high prices of coal; but the men were not
satisfied with the wages. Had they been as free as the Welsh colliers,
they would have insisted on being paid as highly; but it would have
been, as it was in Wales, ruinous to the masters. The system of
industrial partnership had at length to be abandoned, and the men now
work for wages instead of for part-profits. The truth is, the colliers
were not sufficiently educated to appreciate the advantages of the
industrial scheme. Though some of the Whitwood workmen have been
stimulated by thrift, to build and furnish houses of their own, the
greater number of them, during the recent flush of prosperity,
squandered their wages on frivolity, extravagance, and intemperance.
The attempt was also made by several firms engaged in the iron trade, to
embody the principle of co-operation in their respective concerns.
Amongst these were the firms of Greening and Co., Manchester, and Fox,
Head, and Co., Middlesborough.
The experiments were to a certain extent brought to an end by the greed
or laziness of the colliers, who have for a time destroyed the
prosperity of the iron trade. Messrs. Greening and Co. started with
great enthusiasm; and the results were very successful as regards the
workpeople. Nothing could have been better than the spirit of goodwill,
and even devotion, which was displayed by many of them. But, unhappily,
contracts were taken by the management, which resulted in a series of
losses; and the scheme ended in liquidation. Mr. Greening states that
"the Distribution Societies have as yet been much more successful than
the Production Societies;" but he hopes "to see the latter crown the
edifice by making workers everywhere no longer servants, but co-partners
with capital."
The firm of Fox, Head, and Co. also admitted their workmen to a
partnership of profits. They had for some time been much annoyed by
strikes. Their works had stood idle for about a fourth of the whole time
that had elapsed since their commencement. The system of co-operation
was adopted in 1866, at the close of a long strike. One of the
conditions of the scheme was that Fox, Head, and Co. should not be
members of any association of employers, and that the workmen should not
be members of any trades union. The original intention was to pay the
workmen a bonus according to profits. They eventually adopted the
practice of the Messrs. Briggs and Co., which was, to divide the profits
over ten per cent. into two parts: the one to belong to the capitalists
as their profit, and the other to be divided amongst all those who had
received wages or salaries during the year, in proportion to the amount
received by them. An opportunity was also afforded to the workmen of
depositing their savings with the firm; but as there was only one
instance, during three years, of a workman applying to invest his
savings, this clause was withdrawn.
In consequence of the depressed state of the iron trade, there were no
profits to be divided during the first two years. The men were, however,
paid the current rate of wages, and were saved the expenses of Union
levies. The co-operative store, which had been founded by the workmen,
was in a very prosperous condition. In the third year of the
co-operative scheme, a bonus of two and a half per cent, was divided
between the employers and the employed. The workmen also received an
advance of five per cent. in wages. In the fourth year the wages of the
workmen were further increased ten per cent., and this took the cream
off the bowl. However, a bonus of four per cent. was paid on the wages
and salaries received by the _employés_ during that year. At the meeting
held to communicate the result of the year's business, Mr. Head said:--
"There may be some who think the tendency of our policy has been too
sentimental. I don't believe in doing business on sentimental
principles. But I contend that mere money-making is not the sole end of
existence. We have been associated with many of you for several years,
and we cannot help feeling a considerable interest in you. After all,
life is not so very long. Another twenty or thirty years will see us all
under ground, and there will be other employers and other workmen
carrying on business at Newport Rolling Mills. It would indeed be
strange if we did not take some interest in those with whom we are so
much associated. And so, without in the least relaxing discipline, or
sacrificing any true principle of business, we hold it to be our duty as
employers, as well as your duties as _employés_, to consider each
other's interests, and to do all that each of us can in the way of true
and hearty co-operation."
The coal famine began to tell upon the iron-workers. The furnaces were
often laid off for want of coal. The principal causes of the bad supply
of coal arose from shorter hours of labour, and higher wages for less
work. Yet a bonus of three and a quarter per cent, was allowed on the
wages and salaries received by the _employés_ during the year 1871. The
co-operative stores continued to be very productive, and many of the
members saved considerable sums of money. In the next year, a bonus of
three and a half per cent, was divided. But difficulties were in store.
The coal famine continued. The employers of labour held meetings to
resist the successive advances of wages, and to counteract the
operations of the trades unions.
Mr. Head strongly urged the men to hold together: "Cease to be deluded,"
he said, "by these trades unions. Save all you can, and with your
savings provide against the day of sickness--a day which is sure to come
sooner or later. Provide for old age; read good books,--you have every
chance now, with a free library in the town. Give credit to others for
wishing to be straightforward and honest as well as yourselves; and in
every way I would ask you to act as reasonable, straightforward,
sensible English workmen ought to do. Show that you can appreciate being
well used, that you can appreciate those who put themselves to trouble
that they may do you good; and beware lest, by want of sympathy, you
drive the best of the employers out of the business, and retain those
alone who are despotic and tyrannical. Cease to follow those who are
actuated by self-interest, or by blind impulse; who do not care a bit if
they get you into trouble, provided only they serve their own selfish
ends. Such men are but blind leaders of the blind, and if you follow
them you will eventually find yourselves deserted, and lying hopelessly
and helplessly in the last ditch."
It was of no use. The men's wages went up twenty per cent.; and there
was an end of the bonuses. The coal famine continued. The masters,
instead of making profits, made immense losses. The price of iron went
down. The mills stood idle for two months. The result was, that when the
masters next met the workmen in public meeting, Mr. Waterhouse, the
auditor, reported that "while the gross earnings of the year have
exceeded the expenditure on materials, wages, and trade charges, they
have been insufficient to cover the full amounts to be provided under
the co-operative scheme for interest on capital, depreciation, and the
reserve for bad debts; and that consequently it was his duty to declare
that no amount was at present payable as bonus either to employers or
employed." No further report was issued in 1875, excepting an
announcement that there was no dividend, and that the firm did not
intend to continue the co-operative scheme any longer. During the time
that it lasted, the _employés_ had received about eight thousand pounds
in bonuses.
Since then, Sir Joseph Whitworth has announced his intention of giving
his workmen a bonus upon his profits; but the principle of the division
has not yet been announced. On hearing of his intention, Mr. Carlyle
wrote the following letter to Sir Joseph:--
"Would to heaven that all the captains of industry in England had a soul
in them such as yours. The look of England is to me at this moment
abundantly ominous, the question of capital and labour growing ever more
anarchic, insoluble altogether by the notions hitherto applied to
it--pretty sure to issue in petroleum one day, unless some other gospel
than that of the 'Dismal Science' come to illuminate it. Two things are
pretty sure to me. The first is that capital and labour never can or
will agree together till they both first of all decide on doing their
work faithfully throughout, and like men of conscience and honour, whose
highest aim is to behave like faithful citizens of this universe, and
obey the eternal commandments of Almighty God, who made them. The second
thing is, that a sadder object than even that of the coal strike, or any
other conceivable strike, is the fact that--loosely speaking--we may say
all England has decided that the profitablest way is to do its work ill,
slurily, swiftly, and mendaciously. What a contrast between now and say
only a hundred years ago! At the latter date all England awoke to its
work--to an invocation to the Eternal Maker to bless them in their day's
labour, and help them to do it well. Now, all England--shopkeepers,
workmen, all manner of competing labourers--awaken as with an unspoken
but heartfelt prayer to Beelzebub,--'Oh, help us, thou great Lord of
Shoddy, Adulteration, and Malfeasance, to do our work with the maximum
of sluriness, swiftness, profit, and mendacity, for the devil's sake.
Amen.'"
Fortunately, there is not a great deal of truth in this letter, nor in
the "heartfelt prayer" to Shoddy. The Right Hon. Mr. Forster ought to
know something of labour and capital, and at a recent meeting of the
Cobden Club he stated that "they were often told that they had a war
within their borders between labour and capital; but as an employer of
labour ever since he came to manhood, he would only say that he never
knew a time in which employer and employed were on better terms."
The late Sir Francis Crossley observed that there was a good deal of
unreasonable feeling abroad. It was held by some that it was wrong for
working men to sell their labour at the best price; but it must be
remembered that their labour was the only thing they had to sell; and
the best thing to do was to leave those matters to take their natural
course. It was a great mistake, on the part of employers, to suppose
that the lowest-priced labour was always the cheapest. If there was not
so much desire to run down the price of labour, and the masters showed a
more conciliatory spirit, there would be fewer strikes and outrages.
"What a contrast between now and say only a hundred years ago!"
Certainly there is a very great contrast. England was not a
manufacturing country a hundred years ago. We imported nearly
everything, except corn, wool, and flax. We imported the greatest part
of our iron from Spain, Sweden, Germany, and Russia. We imported our
pottery from Holland, our hats from Flanders, our silk from France, our
cloth and carpets from Belgium. Our cotton manufactures, our woollen and
flax manufactures, our machine manufactures, could scarcely be said to
exist. Coal could scarcely be had, for the coal-pits could not be kept
clear of water.
A hundred years ago, we could not build a steam-engine; we could
scarcely build a bridge. Look at the churches built a hundred years ago,
and behold the condition of our architecture. A hundred years ago, we
had fallen to almost the lowest condition as a nation. We had not a
harbour; we had not a dock. The most extensive system of robbery
prevailed on the River Thames. The roads, such as they were, swarmed
with highwaymen; and black-mail was levied by the Highlanders upon the
Lowland farmers, down to the middle of last century.
A hundred years ago, our ships were rotten; they were manned by
prisoners taken from the hulks, or by working men pressed in the streets
in open day. When James Watt was learning his trade of an instrument
maker in London, a hundred years ago, he durst scarcely walk abroad lest
he should be seized and sent to India or the American plantations. Less
than a hundred years ago, the colliers and salters of Scotland were
slaves. It is not forty years since women and children worked in
coalpits. Surely we are not to go down upon our knees and pray for a
restoration of the horrible things that existed a hundred years ago.
A hundred years ago, Ireland was treated like a conquered country; and
hangings and shootings of rebels were frequent. The fleet at the Nore
mutinied; and the mutiny was put down by bloodshed and executions. Towns
and cities swarmed with ruffians; and brutal sports and brutal language
existed to a frightful degree. Criminals were hanged, five or six
together, at Tyburn. Gibbets existed at all the cross-roads throughout
the country. The people were grossly ignorant, and altogether neglected.
Scepticism and irreligion prevailed, until Wesley and Whitfield sprang
up to protest against formalism and atheism. They were pelted with
rotten eggs, sticks, and stones. A Methodist preacher was whipped out of
Gloucester.
A hundred years ago, literature was at a very low ebb. The press was in
a miserable state. William Whitehead was Poet Laureate! Who knows of him
now? Gibbon had not written his "Decline and Fall." _Junius_ was the
popular writer. Political corruption was scarified in his letters. The
upper classes were coarse, drunken, and ill-mannered. Bribery and
corruption on the grossest scale were the principal means for getting
into Parliament. Mr. Dowdeswell, M.P. for Worcestershire, said to the
Commons, "You have turned out a member for impiety and obscenity. What
halfdozen members of this House ever meet over a convivial bottle, that
their discourse is entirely free from obscenity, impiety, or abuse of
Government?"
Though drunkenness is bad enough now, it was infinitely worse a hundred
years ago. The publican's signboards announced, "You may here get drunk
for a penny, dead-drunk for twopence, and have clean straw for nothing."
Drunkenness was considered a manly vice. To drink deep was the fashion
of the day. Six-bottle men were common. Even drunken clergymen were not
unknown.
What were the popular amusements of the people a hundred years ago? They
consisted principally of man-fighting, dog-fighting, cock-fighting, bull
baiting, badger-drawing, the pillory, public whipping, and public
executions. Mr. Wyndham vindicated the ruffianism of the Ring in his
place in Parliament, and held it up as a school in which Englishmen
learnt pluck and "the manly art of self-defence." Bull-baiting was
perhaps more brutal than prize-fighting, though Wyndham defended it as
"calculated to stimulate the noble courage of Englishmen." The bull was
secured to a stake in the market-place or the bull-ring (the name still
survives in many towns), and there the animal was baited by the rabble
dogs of the neighbourhood. One can scarcely imagine the savageness of
the sport--the animal mutilations, the imprecations of ruffians worse
than brutes, the ferociousness and drunkenness, the blasphemy and
unspeakable horrors of the exhibition. The public mind of this day
absolutely revolts at such brutality. Yet, less than a hundred years
ago--on the 24th of May, 1802,--a Bill for the abolition of bull-baiting
was lost in the House of Commons by sixty-four to fifty-one,--Mr.
Wyndham contending that horse-racing and hunting were more cruel than
bull-baiting or prize-fighting!
The pillory was one of our time-honoured institutions fifty years ago,
and men and women used to be placed there for offences, such as a wise
legislature would have endeavoured to conceal from public consideration.
The horrid scenes which then took place, when men, women, and children
collected in crowds to pelt the offenders with missiles, were so
disgusting, that they cannot be described. Not more seemly were the
public whippings then administered to women in common with the coarsest
male offenders. The public abominations and obscenities of the "good old
times" would almost have disgraced the days of Nero.
But bull-baiting, cock-fighting, and other ferocious amusements, have
now departed. Even the village stocks have rotted out. Drunkenness has
become disreputable. The "good old times" have departed, we hope never
to return. The labourer has now other resources beside the public-house.
There are exhibitions and people's parks, steamboats and railways,
reading-rooms and coffee-rooms, museums, gardens, and cheap concerts. In
place of the disgusting old amusements, there has come a healthier,
sounder life, greater enlightenment, more general sobriety, and a
humaner spirit. We have in a hundred years outgrown many of our savage
tendencies. We are not less brave as a people, though less brutal. We
are quite as manly, though much less gross. Manners are more refined,
yet as a people we have not lost our pluck, energy, and endurance. We
respect ourselves more, and as a nation we have become more respected.
We now think with shame of the manners of a hundred years ago.
The achievements of which England has most reason to be proud, have been
accomplished during the last hundred years. English slaves have been
emancipated, both at home and abroad. Impressment has been done away
with. Parliamentary representation has been conferred upon all classes
of the people. The Corn Laws have been abolished. Free trade has been
established. Our ports are now open to the whole world.
And then, see what our inventors have accomplished! James Watt invented
the steam-engine, which in a few years created a large number of new
industries, and gave employment to immense numbers of people. Henry Cort
invented the puddling-process, and enabled England to rely upon its own
stores of iron, instead of depending upon foreign and perhaps hostile
countries. All the docks and harbours round the English coast have been
formed during the present century. The steamboat, the railway, and the
telegraph have only been invented and applied during the last fifty
years.
With respect to the charge made against the English workman as to the
"sluriness, swiftness, and mendacity" of his work, it is simply
impossible that this should be so. Our ports are free and open to the
world; and if Frenchmen, Germans, Belgians, or Americans could execute
better work than Englishmen, we should not only cease to export, but
also lose our home trade. The foreigner is now free to undersell us, if
he can, in our own markets.
It was in the perfect confidence that Englishmen were the best and most
honest workers in the world, that free trade was established. Should we
ever become a shoddy manufacturing people, free trade will probably be
abolished; and we shall then impose prohibitory duties upon foreign
manufactures. But is it not the fact that every year sees an increase in
the exports of English goods,--that English workmanship is not
considered the worst, but the best, in the general markets of the
world,--and that numerous foreign makers place an English mark upon
their productions in order to ensure their sale?
It is by means of English workmen and English tools and machines that
continental manufactories themselves have been established; and yet,
notwithstanding their cheaper labour, we should command the foreign
market, but for the prohibitory duties which foreigners impose upon
English manufactures. Mr. Brassey, in his book on _Work and Wages_,
says, "It may be affirmed that as practical mechanics the English are
unsurpassed. The presence of the English engineer, the solitary
representative, among a crew of foreigners, of the mechanical genius of
his country, is a familiar recollection to all who have travelled much
in the steamers of the Mediterranean. Consul Lever says that in the vast
establishment of the Austrian Lloyds at Trieste, a number of English
mechanical engineers are employed, not only in the workshops, but as
navigating engineers in the company's fleet. Although there is no
difficulty in substituting for these men Germans or Swiss, at lower
rates of payment, the uniform accuracy of the English, their
intelligence, their consummate mastery of all the details of their art,
and their resources in every case of difficulty, have entirely
established their superiority."[1]
[Footnote 1: _Work and Wages_, p. 114.]
The English are also the best miners, the best tool-makers, the best
instrument-makers, the best "navvies," the best ship-builders, the best
spinners and weavers. Mr. Brassey says that during the construction of
the Paris and Rouen Railway, the Frenchman, Irishman, and Englishman
were employed side by side. In the same quarry at Bounierés, the
Frenchman received three francs, the Irishman four, and the Englishman
six; and the last was found to be the most advantageous workman of the
three. The superiority of the English workman over persons of other
nations was equally remarkable whenever there was an opportunity of
employing him side by side with them.
There is no doubt about the "swiftness" of English Workmanship. But this
is one of the merits of English mechanism. M. Jules Simon observes that
heretofore the manual labourer has been an intelligent force, but by
means of machinery he is converted into an intelligent director of
force. It is by the speed of the English machinery, and the intelligent
quickness of the workmen, that his master makes a profit, and himself
such high wages as compared with continental workmen. In France, one
person is employed to mind fourteen spindles; in Russia, one to
twenty-eight; in Prussia, one to thirty-seven; and in Great Britain, one
to seventy-four spindles. It is by means of the swiftness of our
machinery that we are enabled to bring cotton from India, manufacture it
in Manchester, return the manufactured article to the place from which
it was taken, and sell it at a lower price than the native-made calico.
Mr. Chadwick mentions the following case. "A lady, the wife of an
eminent cotton manufacturer, went to him one day rejoicing, with a fine
piece of muslin, as the produce of India, which she had bought in
London, and showing it to him, said, if he produced a fabric like that,
he would really be doing something meritorious in textile art. He
examined it, and found that it was the produce of his own looms, near
Manchester, made for the Indian market exclusively, bought there, and
re-sold in England as rare Indian manufacture!"[1]
[Footnote 1: _Address on Economy and Free Trade_. By Edwin Chadwick,
C.B., at the Association for the Promotion of Social Science at York,
1861.]
An annual report is furnished to the Government, by our foreign consuls,
with reference to the character and condition of the working classes in
most parts of the civilized world. Mr. Walter, M.P., in a recent address
to an assembly of workmen, referred to one of these reports. He said,
"There is one remark, in particular, that occurs with lamentable
frequency throughout the report,--that, with few exceptions, the foreign
workman does not appear 'to take pride in his work,' nor (to use a
significant expression) to 'put his character into it.' A remarkable
instance of this is mentioned of a country which generally constitutes
an honourable exception to this unhappy rule. Switzerland is a country
famous for its education and its watches; yet the following passage from
the report will show that neither knowledge nor skill will suffice
without the exercise of that higher quality on which I have been
dwelling. 'As a rule,' it says, 'Swiss workmen are competent in their
several trades, and take an interest in their work; for, thanks to their
superior education, they fully appreciate the pecuniary advantages to
their masters, and indirectly to themselves, of adhering strictly to
this course. A striking instance of the impolicy of acting otherwise has
lately happened at St. Imier, in the Bernese Jura, and produced a deep
impression. In this district, for some years past, a great falling off
in the quality of the watches manufactured has taken place, owing to the
inhabitants finding it much more profitable to increase the production
at the cost of the workmanship than to abide by the old rules of the
trade. They prospered beyond all expectation for a considerable time,
but finally their watches got such a bad name that they became
unsaleable, and the result is a general bankruptcy of nearly all the
watchmakers of this particular district."
One thing, however, remains to be said of foreign workmen generally.
Although they do not work so hard as the English, they take much better
care of their earnings. They are exceedingly frugal and economical.
Frenchmen are much soberer than Englishmen, and much better mannered.
They are, on the whole, greatly more provident than English workmen. Mr.
Brassey states that when the Paris and Rouen Railway works were
commenced, the contractors endeavoured to introduce a system by which
the workmen were to be paid once a fortnight; but very soon after the
operations had begun, the Frenchmen requested that the pay might take
place only once a month.
Mr. Reid, managing director of the line, told the House of Commons
Committee on Railway Labourers, that a French labourer is a much more
independent person than an Englishman, and much more respectable. He
stated, in support of his opinion, this remarkable circumstance, that
whereas a French labourer desired to be paid only once a month, the
English labourer desired to be paid every Saturday night,--and by the
following Wednesday he wanted something on account of the week's work.
"Nothing could be a greater test," said Mr. Reid, "of the respectability
of a working man than being able to go without his pay for a month."[1]
[Footnote 1: Thomas Brassey, M.P., _On Work and Wages_.]
Although the French workman has nothing like the same facilities for
saving as the English, the _Journal des Débats_ alleges that he saves
ten times as much as his rival. There are only about a thousand savings
banks and branches established in France, and yet two millions of
persons belonging to the lower ranks last year had invested in them
about twenty-eight millions sterling. But the Frenchman of the city
prefers investing in Government Rentes; and the Frenchman of the country
prefers investing in land. All, however, are thrifty, saving, and
frugal; because they are educated in economy from their earliest years.